Rendering of the Milwaukee Streetcar vehicle.

This week there are two important public meetings regarding the future of Milwaukee’s built environment.

Today there will be a meeting hosted by the Department of Transportation which will give residents a chance to ask questions and share opinions about the proposal to add a bike and pedestrian lane on the Daniel Hoan Memorial Bridge.  The meeting will be held in the DOT offices, 1001 W. St. Paul Ave., and starts at 5 p.m. The DOT planners presentation will begin at 5:15.

On Wednesday the 16th, the Federal Government will hold a Public Hearing on the Draft Environmental Assessment for the Milwaukee Streetcar Project.  The meeting will be held in the Frontier Airlines Center, 410 West Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee First Floor, Room 101A-D (closest entrance is 4th Street & Wisconsin Avenue) and starts at 5:30 p.m.  The formal presentation will begin at 6:00 pm.

UrbanMilwaukee.com has long supported both of these projects (Bike the Hoan / Milwaukee Streetcar Project), and hopes the public comes out to show their support for these improvements to Milwaukee.

Riding Over the Hoan Looks Tough - Photo by Brian Jacobson, courtesy of ThirdCoast Digest

Should the Hoan Bridge have a bike and pedestrian path or not?  According to comment section of the Journal Sentinel it appears that there are numerous ‘reasons’ why a bike lane should not be built on the Hoan Bridge, but are they really valid?

• It will be too windy, bicyclists will be blown off the bridge.
• The climb is too difficult for most bicyclists.
• It will be too dangerous.
• It will make automobile traffic congestion worse.
• It is illegal to have a bike lane on an Interstate.
• Nobody will use it during the winter.
• It will cost too much.

Certainly, wind impacts bicyclists ability to ride, but this is not a problem unique to the Hoan Bridge in Milwaukee.  In fact people walk and bike over the Brooklyn Bridge and the Golden Gate Bridge regularly, so it seems the wind issue can be managed or is simply a lot of hot air.  Additionally, it should be noted that this past summer 7,000 bicyclists road over the Hoan, and not one of them was blown off.

From the ground the Hoan Bridge certainly looks like it would be a difficult climb, but again this past summer 7,000 bicyclists of all ages, including children, riding a wide range of bicycles, and of  all skill levels rode right on over it.  As one of those bicyclists, I can tell you it is not a difficult climb, in fact it is not nearly as difficult a climb as numerous of the hills located around Milwaukee that people bike over regularly.

Concerns over the safety of bicyclists are often raised, and safety should of course be a significant concern.  However, the design would not to simply paint a white stripe on the Interstate and designate a section for bicyclists.  The design would include concrete walls separating bicycle traffic from automobile traffic.  This separation would keep pedestrians and bicyclists out of automobile lanes, and of course keep automobiles out of the path, making it perfectly safe.

Some people, and one Milwaukee County Supervisor in particular, fear that removing an automobile lane would cause traffic backups and congestion.  The truth is the bridge carries just 40,000 cars a day, barely enough for it to qualify for Interstate status, and far from a two-lane highway’s capacity.  In fact the bridge likely never hits peak traffic levels, and it is also likely that the UPAF ride was among the most highly utilized couple of hours in the bridge’s history.  Further, on either end of the bridge travel lanes drop to two-lanes negating much of the value of the additional lane.  Finally, there have been numerous times when these lanes have been closed (as they are now) and traffic didn’t backup.  To make this perfectly clear, Dave Schlabowske took some videos on multiple days showing how traffic flows fine, during rush hour, without the additional traffic lane that would be removed for the bike trail.

Although, it may seem on its surface that bicyclists shouldn’t be on Interstates, the reality is that bicyclists are allowed on Interstates unless otherwise posted, which often enough individual states decided to post a restriction.  But, in the case of federally funded bridges it is actually the case that bicycle and pedestrian considerations are required by the United States Code (U.S.C.) and the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in Title 23—Highways, Title 49—Transportation, and Title 42—The Public Health and Welfare.  Additionally, there are examples such as Interstate 90 in Seattle which currently has a bike lane on it, with few or no issues.

There is no doubt that during the winter bicycle traffic will drop off.  But winter isn’t twelve months of the year, and bicycling isn’t a summer only activity.  Further, people have no issue with other outdoor winter activities including skiing, sledding, or ice skating, and every year more and more year-round bike commuters are entering our roads, myself included.

The most serious of these ‘issues’ revolves around cost.  Certainly, if the new bike trail is to cost $100 million it maybe shouldn’t be built, but if it is a small portion of a $300 million re-decking project, it is worth the cost.

There are plenty of valid reasons to build the bike lane, including enhanced tourism, healthy living, improved air quality, congestion reduction, and improved connectivity to name just a few.  So enough with the excuses already, add the bike lane to the Hoan Bridge.

The Hoan Bridge

In June thousands of bicyclists will be riding over the Hoan Bridge during the UPAF Miller Lite Ride for the Arts, many of which will be signing up because it will be such a rare opportunity as the bridge isn’t currently accessible to bicyclists.  These bicyclists are coming from around the Midwest, and some like myself plan to stop and take a few pictures on the way, much like any tourist would do if giving the chance.  A chance, an opportunity, that the State of Wisconsin should explore.

This opportunity is for the State of Wisconsin to include the development of bike and pedestrian infrastructure as part of the project to create a new tourist destination for the State of Wisconsin.  At a time when the proposed State of Wisconsin budget calls for a $1 million boost in the tourism department in 2012 and an additional $2.4 million increase in 2013, likely for increased advertising with marginal returns, a better use of these funds would be to create a new tourist destination that could be a draw for many years to come.  Of course few if any people visit Milwaukee with the hope of driving over the Hoan Bridge, but if they could walk or bike over it, with the ability to stop and take pictures this would be a pretty rare, unique experience desirable to visitors of Wisconsin.  As community activist Bill Sell points on his website, Bike the Hoan, “Chicago has nothing like this bridge.”

Although we at UrbanMilwaukee.com believe the Hoan Bridge and the Lake Interchange should be be radically adjusted to allow further development in the Historic Third Ward and downtown Milwaukee it appears these options are off the table.  In lieu of realizing the potentially enormous benefits to the taxbase, creating this new tourist destination and resident amenity, could at least offer some payback to the City of Milwaukee.

“… it reduces the Lake Parkway into a conduit useful only for reaching downtown.”

Yes, my plan did take the existing, iconic Hoan Bridge and drop it to the ground as a conduit to downtown.  Patrick reports that 2/3′s of the cars on the Hoan Bridge actually use it for just that.  That’s 66% of the drivers using it just how I proposed to keep it.  With a polling number like that, a referendum among Hoan drivers for my plan looks like it would win in a landslide.

What do the other cars do?  Well they possibly go slightly west to Marquette or the Menomonee Valley, or they drive across some of the most expensive real estate in the state to reach Waukesha County.  According to Patrick’s stat, that’s 1/3 of the trips across the Hoan and 794 that likely start in a suburb of Milwaukee, go right through downtown Milwaukee, and end up in somewhere west of Milwaukee, like Waukesha County.

Now if you draw a line on a map from Cudahy to Waukesha you’ll notice it doesn’t go through downtown Milwaukee. Also, if you look at a photo of downtown Milwaukee you’ll notice there are big buildings, signifying amongst many other things, that the land is valuable.  However, the land immediately adjacent to the freeway is used for parking as the buildings turn their back on the concrete wall. My plan would replace the east-west freeway with a boulevard that would allow this land to be developed similar to the land immediately north and south of it (a large boost the Park East didn’t have). At the same time, my plan would still ensure quick and easy access to downtown jobs.

What my plan didn’t do was maintain the “Milwaukee bypass” that connects the southern suburbs with Waukesha County through downtown Milwaukee.  We have some different “suggestions” for that, including extending Interstate 894 east through St. Francis and Cudahy to reach the Lakefront Parkway.  That will still maintain what suburban commuters feel is critical freeway access to the western world.  I’ll explore possible routes for that in a future article.

Between being paranoid about a roundabout, changing my plans to eliminate the western part of 794 downtown, and spelling my name wrong again (Jeramey, not Jeremy), Patrick makes a few really good points.  Sixty-six percent of riders would not have their commute impaired, as the bridge would guide them their ultimate destination.  It will be nice for the City of Milwaukee to add to its tax base instead of serve as a bypass (something the Public Policy Forum probably thinks is a good thing after the study they recently released).  And my favorite…

“One hates to break it to the urbanists: The center of Milwaukee is not the center of the universe.”

To which my only response can be yes, that’s true, but why are you so determined to have people drive through it then?

The Setup

Before considering the merits of either proposal, it’s important to understand why and how the debate started in the first place. On August 22nd, 2008, The Business Journal of Milwaukee floated a trial balloon for the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) quoting Transportation Secretary Frank Busalacchi discussing the feasibility of tearing down the bridge.  The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel was quick to follow with more attention to the issue, including react quotes from south side politicians.

Why did WisDOT broach the issue in such a way? Proposing eliminating a part of the interstate system isn’t exactly business as usual for WisDOT.  The department has lead a $810 million reconstruction of the Marquette Interchange, is in process spending $1.9 billion expanding and rebuilding I-94 to the state line, and is lining up plans to expand the Zoo Interchange at a potential cost of $2.3 billion.  Par for the course for WisDOT would be expanding the capacity of the bridge, adding off-ramps, and spending more than the project before. Eliminating a section of a federally-designated Interstate highway just isn’t a plan that would likely emerge from WisDOT, let alone one that they would float as a trial balloon.

The Hoan Bridge as seen from the US Bank Center top floor. The bridge itself is rather narrow, but it's the ramps at the end that consume all the space.

So where did the discussion truly originate?  The United States Department of Transportation.  The only logical scenario is that the federal transportation department has informed WisDOT that they wish to remove the federal designation from the bridge. One would presume that the facts that the bridge needs to be redecked and that interstate-level federal support won’t be available to financially support the redecking would spur one into proposing different ideas that would reduce the total lifetime cost of the highway.  If the federal government really is looking to remove the designation, WisDOT’s search for options seems rational.

Why would the U.S. DOT’s Federal Highway Administration look to remove that interstate designation?  Perhaps because traffic counts are too low at 40,000 vehicles per day.  Maybe because they’re looking to remove spurs as a way to save money.  It’s possible that the FHWA is merely looking to reduce the total mileage of the system as a way to save money, especially with sections that are due to be reconstructed soon.  It’s also possible that Wisconsin, by funding the Lake Park Highway has shown a willingness to fund the stub, and the FHWA is just looking to save money by giving Wisconsin the rest of the stretch from the Marquette Interchange. I don’t have an exact answer, but all signs point to a behind-the-scenes force prompting WisDOT’s action on the Hoan Bridge.

How is WisDOT handling this?  It would appear they’re content to let groups in Milwaukee fight it out, perhaps in hopes of raising some funds for any necessary work from the city of Milwaukee in TIF dollars or another form.  They’ve committed to studying the process, commissioning HNTB to conduct the study.

What Could Be Gained?

Assuming that the bridge will lose its interstate status regardless of which action is picked locally, there is a lot that could be gained by more sensible planning of the southside connection.  The plans released by HNTB indicating a potential for billions of dollars in real estate development are clearly an over exaggeration.  When examining the Hoan Bridge footprint, it’s pretty clear that the south end of the bridge in Bay View isn’t ripe for any form of development, nor certainly is Jones Island.  And while Walker’s Point has seen a proposal or two as of late (Rivianna being the best example), the odds of a large amount of development occurring in all of Walker’s Point in the ten to twenty years are relatively slim.  Sure Bay View and Walker’s Point will see development happen, but reconfiguring the bridge to better connect with either neighborhood will do little to help that at this point in time.  There is one area where reconfiguration of the highway could yield large gains.

Reconfiguring the North End of the Hoan Bridge

The north end of Interstate 794 as it turns to head west towards the Marquette Interchange occupies some of the most expensive real estate in the city.  Development on the north end of the bridge hasn’t been inhibited as much by the bridge itself as it by the overbuilt ramps that are part of the partially completed Lake Interchange that was designed when the Lake Freeway was planned to continue up the lakefront and connect with the Park East Freeway.

The Lake Interchange simply isn’t needed anymore (nor was it ever), and a solution that encompasses the needs of southside commuters and Milwaukee.  The Third Ward and East Town contain undoubtedly the most expensive office space in the city.  It’s no wonder that residents to the south want to protect the Hoan, it ensures access to the highest paying jobs in the city outside of Miller Park and the Bradley Center.  It’s time to look at reconfiguring the bridge as a way to connect residents to those jobs (and to the countless nearby cultural amenities), and as a way to grow the availability of jobs and amenities at the north end of the Hoan.

The red-framed land is the land that would made available for redevelopment as a result of the bridge reconfiguration. The blue illustrates the street-level boulevard that would replace the elevated freeway.

How can that be done?  Simply land the bridge earlier.  Currently the bridge comes down to ground level at Michigan Street.  If possible from an engineering perspective, leaving the iconic, existing bridge in place and dropping the ramp at a faster rate would yield these savings without the sacrifice of any buildings or stages at the Maier Festival Park.  It would likewise not noticeably lengthen the southside to downtown commute.  Drivers that use the Hoan would still have quick access to downtown over largely the same bridge, but would enter a reconfigured street grid that would diffuse them to their downtown destination.

Lowering Interstate 794 from the Milwaukee River to the east with a smooth-flowing street-level boulevard would finally unite East Town with the Third Ward.  This would open the land inbetween to development with stunning lake views, and logically unite the Milwaukee Art Museum and Discovery World with the boutique-laden Third Ward.  Furthermore, building an lower and more attractive bridge would further encourage development near the western reclaimed lane, which unlike the other reclaimed land would be deprived of a lakeview.  Depending on how far south the Hoan Bridge can be landed, up to 500,00 square feet of land could be opened for development.  Chicago Street probably represents the most opportunistic position, with St. Paul Avenue being the easiest position outside of a reconfigured Michigan St.

What About the Park East Issues?

The Hoan Bridge as it comes into downtown, as seen from the Chase Tower. The green lines indicate the massing of a new street-level boulevard, while the blue lines reflect the current space consumed by the elevated freeway. The red line shows a reconfigured trajectory towards the ground.

This land is far more valuable than the reclaimed land from the Park East Freeway based on location alone.  It’s closer to the lake, and inbetween two economically healthy neighborhoods.  To compare the potential of a development like this to the Park East is borderline apples to oranges.  Projects like the canceled Palomar hotel and condo development would certainly happen in the land made available between the Third Ward and East Town, likely without any public financial assistance.  One of the same challenges that faces the Park East unfortunately rears its head with Milwaukee County being the land holder, but with a better plan from the start the City of Milwaukee Department of City Development can be put in charge of managing the land sales.

What’s The Result?

At the end of the day, as the above illustration shows, access is still ensured to downtown via 794 and the Hoan Bridge.  Provided the configuration can be made to work, the iconic bridge that people have come to know and love is preserved, and it’s still very easy to get from the southern suburbs and Bay View into downtown.  Nothing that prevents access from the southside to downtown.  Worst-case scenario is a slightly lower Hoan that maintains the same look and feel as the previous bridge, yet comes to the ground quicker than the current bridge.  The only traveler affected is the one looking to use Interstate 794 from the southern suburbs to head west to Waukesha and beyond, they would have to instead start their journey heading west to get on I-94, an extremely minor inconvenience.  The plan blends the desires of the Save the Hoan coalition and Alderman Robert Bauman.  The benefit?  More than 500,000 square feet of new land for development, and a more attractive and interconnected lakefront. Nothing to sneeze at when it comes to developing a healthier Milwaukee.

The release indicates positions we have advocated for before, including the need for the bridge to better interact with the city at its northern terminus at Clybourn and Lincoln Memorial Drive.

One should not hold out hope that the city gets everything it asks for though.  As evidence of how little influence they city may have in the issue, Mayor Barrett and Common Council President Hines were mere attendees at the Marquette Interchange ribbon cutting.  They stood among the crowd, while Governor Doyle and Transportation Secretary Busalacchi unveiled their $800 million interchange.  There might not be better symbolism for highway building than that.  The city can yell all it wants, but will the state listen?

When

Bridge reconstruction is expected to be completed in 2013.  The timeframe for such a redevelopment is relatively fast.

Where

The entire structure is in need of serious maintenance in the form of a redecking.  Running from the eastern half of Interstate 794 downtown to the south end of the bridge where it touches down in Bay View.

Who Uses It

The bridge serves primarily Bay View, St. Francis, and other southside residents looking to enter downtown and nearby neighborhoods.  It likewise provides access for individuals downtown looking to get to the airport.

Who Builds It

The Wisconsin Department of Transportation will award and manage contracts for bridge reconstruction.  The City of Milwaukee is not the project manager by any means.

Cost

Simply rebuilding the bridge as is was estimated at $200 million, and some sort of rebuild is viewed as necessary for safety reasons.  A considerable amount of money is going to need to be spent, even just to maintain the status quo.

Bauman’s Proposed Principles

Alderman Bauman’s press release revealed a series of principles to be introduced to the full Common Council on July 7th.

• The bridge and its approaches must use the existing right-of-way and substantially the same footprint.
• The bridge’s approaches must remain elevated over all land uses currently beneath the approaches, including but not limited to the Port of Milwaukee, MMSD and the Maier festival park.
• Any moveable bridge spans must have sufficient clearance over the (average) water level to minimize bridge openings for non-commercial vessels.
• Bridge openings must be limited to non-peak traffic periods, except in emergencies.
• The bridge and its approaches must accommodate pedestrian and bicycle traffic.
• The bridge and its approaches must be limited to two travel lanes and one distress lane, bicycle lane and pedestrian sidewalk in each direction.
• The lake shore interchange must be eliminated and replaced by an at-grade intersection or roundabout in the approximate location of Clybourn Street and Lincoln Memorial Drive.
• All new or reconstructed structures must be designed with lighting and architectural elements developed in consultation with the City of Milwaukee.

Conclusion

It seems perfectly reasonable to assume that the completely elevated bridge could be rebuilt in a fashion much more respectful to the city, that doesn’t impair motorists’ ability to enter downtown.  Drivers looking to enter downtown might actually have a better experience being dropped to street-level faster (the street grid gives options) at the north end of the bridge.  Also, while much of the land over which the bridge crosses isn’t developable, the land at the north end of the bridge holds a lot of potential.  A bridge that better interacts with the city could pay dividends in the form of a healthier neighborhood and increased tax base.

Cost is something to consider, and dropping the bridge to an intersection at the north end would likely mean the loss of the Interstate designation and some amount of federal funding.  That isn’t a reason not to do a highway rebuild though, as the state has shown by spending $400 million rebuilding Highway 26 from Janesville to Watertown, which includes the addition of by-passes around towns smaller than the Bay View neighborhood.

The Journal Sentinel article leads off by saying the idea has “crashed and burned” because the mayors of St. Francis and Cudahy like the bridge. Which is all well and good, except last I checked the bridge is in Milwaukee so perhaps talking to Milwaukee elected officials would have been a good idea? Being an interstate, it is state-owned, but to deny Milwaukeeans a comment on the issue is a little too much.

A critical aspect of the discussion that the Journal Sentinel article ignored was that any proposal will not simply include tearing down the bridge. It will include replacing the bridge. Certainly simply removing the bridge would be a fiasco, replacing it does not have to be if street-level lift bridges are placed at the right points.

We have come up with seven good reasons to replace the bridge with a street grid system.

1. The bridge does not generate economic development along the land it runs, a replacement that was integrated with the city street grid would. The increased traffic would be great for businesses, both existing and new. The increased accessibility would further encourage more residential development in the area.

2. The bridge is going to be costly to repair, and will continue to cost taxpayers money in the future. Replacing it with a street grid based system will be more cost-effective both now and in the future.

3. The bridge is a risk for MMSD. This reality was driven home in 2000 when the bridge partially collapsed directly above MMSD’s Jones Island facility (the end destination of your toilet).

The Hoan Bridge was the site of a near disaster in December 2000 after two of three support beams failed, causing nearly 200 feet along the northbound lanes to buckle and sag by three to four feet. It left the span in a near collapsed state. In late December 2000, demolition experts used explosives to remove damaged sections of the bridge that crossed over the MMSD’s Jones Island treatment plant.

“We were genuinely concerned it was going to fall on critical conduits of the MMSD plant, cutting off electricity to our facility,” Shafer said.

The DOT spent more than $16 million to demolish and rebuild the damaged area before the Hoan Bridge reopened for traffic in November 2001.

4. Never the “Bridge To Nowhere” ever again. While the bridge was built and left unconnected for a number of years early in its life, it was also closed for almost an entire year in 2001 following the partial collapse. Replacing the bridge with the street grid will give drivers options in the event of one road closing.

5. Replacing the bridge will still leverage existing assets like the Lake Parkway, but will also allow easier access to areas like Walker’s Point/Fifth Ward and the south side of the Third Ward. At the same time synchronized lights should make getting downtown just as easy.

6. We’ve done this before, and have been largely successful. The conversion of the Park East Freeway, an elevated freeway on the north side of downtown, was a huge success when you look at traffic flow. It’s just as easy to get down McKinley Avenue as it was to get down the freeway. We can apply the same principles from the Park East Freeway freeway-to-boulevard conversion to the Hoan Bridge.

7. The Hoan Bridge is currently inaccessible for bicyclists and pedestrians. Any replacement will presumably serve both of those groups better, as well as being better for mass transit riders. Currently riding the bus over the bridge may be a pleasure, unless you need to get to somewhere in the middle where you are forced to back track. A street grid solution will allow riders to get to more locations much more easily.